On 3/5/19 11:59 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 09:59 -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 12:10 PM Andy Shevchenko >> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 12:36:47PM +0000, Louis Taylor wrote: >>>> A few commonly used integer types were absent from this table, so add >>>> them. >>> >>> I'm not against the patch, but isn't obvious by reading POSIX and / or man >>> printf(3)? >> >> You'd think; but based on the sheer number of -Wformat warnings >> (~450), I'm not so sure. > > <shrug> software defects are always present. > > Many of the -Wformat warnings are bogus too. > > There's nothing wrong with using %x for a unsigned int > of less than long size. (u8/u16) > >> At least with this patch they're "above the >> fold." > > I'd personally go with > "posix plus kernel specific deletions and extensions" Yeah, I don't think that all of the "standard" types/formats need to be in there. Just the differences. >> The kernel also has its own format flag extensions, and does not >> implement %n (for good reason), so it's better to be explicit than >> imply posix or glibc compat. > > %i is also supported and used a few hundred times > > -- ~Randy
